both words have forced choice meaning and are thus a bit deceptive. im sumthing in the middle. sum1 who beleives that supernatural as a WHOLE can not be disproved a 100% but a SELF contradicting god {i.e. omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolant at the same time} like the judeo christian god can not exist EVER.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
both words have forced choice meaning and are thus a bit deceptive. im sumthing in the middle. sum1 who beleives that supernatural as a WHOLE can not be disproved a 100% but a SELF contradicting god {i.e. omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolant at the same time} like the judeo christian god can not exist EVER.
But...what if...just like Einstein...you are incorrect?
The universe declares His glory (the glory of God).
His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (this is your proof that God is, the things that are made). His eternal power and divinity are so clear that you need myopia (and I do not believe that you have myopia) to miss them.
Do you think that you have an excuse to disbelieve that God is?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But...what if...just like Einstein...you are incorrect?The universe declares His glory (the glory of God).
His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (this is your proof that God is, the things that are made). His eternal power and divinity are so clear that you need myopia to miss them.
Do you think that you have an excuse to disbelieve that God is?
1. get off your self righteous high horse
2. and what made einstien accept that he was wrong???? EVIDENCE, consistant, logical, quantifyable EVIDENCE. prove such evidence against my assertions and i will admit that im wrong, until then, dont bring it up
3. the universe declares his ABSENCE
4. INVISIBLE attributes by definition can not be SEEN.
5. you mean ASSEMBLE, since no1 has ever witnessed any matter or energy or space being MADE out of nothingness, all we have ever witnessed is already present matter and energy change forms and be ASSEMBLED into different form. that isnt MAKING, that is PUTTING TOGETHER
6. he doesnt exist
7. yes i have lots of excuses, science, reason, logic, humanity. whats your excuse for beleiving in him? fear and stupidity?
I want to play this game too!
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But...what if...just like Einstein...you are incorrect?
See how annoying the improper use of ellipses is? Stop it.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The universe declares His glory (the glory of God).
So the game begins. 😖hifty:
The universe does not suggest the existence of a god.
Sweet baby yahwe. I'm good at this. I can make unsubstantiated assertions too.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (this is your proof that God is, the things that are made). His eternal power and divinity are so clear that you need myopia (and I do not believe that you have myopia) to miss them.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Do you think that you have an excuse to disbelieve that God is?
[I am rubber and you are glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.]
Originally posted by leonheartmm
1. get off your self righteous high horse2. and what made einstien accept that he was wrong???? EVIDENCE, consistant, logical, quantifyable EVIDENCE. prove such evidence against my assertions and i will admit that im wrong, until then, dont bring it up
3. the universe declares his ABSENCE
4. INVISIBLE attributes by definition can not be SEEN.
5. you mean ASSEMBLE, since no1 has ever witnessed any matter or energy or space being MADE out of nothingness, all we have ever witnessed is already present matter and energy change forms and be ASSEMBLED into different form. that isnt MAKING, that is PUTTING TOGETHER
6. he doesnt exist
7. yes i have lots of excuses, science, reason, logic, humanity. whats your excuse for beleiving in him? fear and stupidity?
High horse? Why are you so angry?
The evidence that Einstein yielded to pointed to what the Bible said in the beginning: the universe had a beginning (no pun intended).
Since you avoided the question or perhaps overlooked it, do springs wind themselves? The universe could not have caused itself. This is contrary to the law of cause and effect. There is no such animal as natural laws break down at the quantum level. This is a lie.
Invisible attributes are clearly seen by (this is the operative word) the things that are made. In other words, they are apparent or manifested as it were by what you can see. You see evidence for God day and night.
Making...putting together (sounds synonymous to me.)
The proof that you seek will perhaps be available to you in the hereafter (which is unfortunate).
Have I accused you of stupidity? Why the insult? Are all atheists as unkind? Why?
There is no such animal as natural laws break down at the quantum level. This is a lie.
Yeah, because you're definitely the authority on what's true and false as it pertains to current scientific orthodoxy.
Anyway, the idea that natural laws break down @ quantum levels is an oversimplification: newtonian physics does not appear to be strictly accurate (I think- I'm a layman talking way outside my comfort zone) but there are definitely laws in effect.
Unless you'd like to tell the quantum physicists that they're wasting their time?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
High horse? Why are you so angry?The evidence that Einstein yielded to pointed to what the Bible said in the beginning: the universe had a beginning (no pun intended).
Since you avoided the question or perhaps overlooked it, do springs wind themselves? The universe could not have caused itself. This is contrary to the law of cause and effect. There is no such animal as natural laws break down at the quantum level. This is a lie.
Invisible attributes are clearly seen by (this is the operative word) the things that are made. In other words, they are apparent or manifested as it were by what you can see. You see evidence for God day and night.
Making...putting together (sounds synonymous to me.)
The proof that you seek will perhaps be available to you in the hereafter (which is unfortunate).
Have I accused you of stupidity? Why the insult? Are all atheists as unkind? Why?
stop projecting
einstien did not yield to a biblical stance, that statment is ridiculous to the nth degree. all he said was that the cosmological constant{which would counteract the force of gravity and allow the universe to expand at the rate it does} was a mistake. incidently, the cosmological constant has NOTHING to do with the fact of big bang occuring or the biblical explanation, your making shit up.
springs winding = readjustment of the structure of already EXISTING matter and energy based on the dynamic state of matter around them{i.e people or forces which cause such event to occurs
universal creation = creating out of NON existance, matter/energy/space/time and force.
you see, HUGE difference, and not the same cause and affect applies. there is NO precedence for things being created out of NOTHING. it would require a WHOLLY different sort of CAUSE to do that as opposed to the cause which wound the spring. i did not avoid your question, you avoided my answer.
and yes, unless you wanna deny quantum effects like defraction of light and electron, you shall concede that laws which seem solid to us at this macrological level break down at the quantum level.
your contradicting yourself again. if they so called CAUSES cant be SEEN then how can we ATTRIBUTE the AFFECTS to THEM?!?!?!?!
it might sound the same to you but it works different when its convenient to you, seeing as for so long you have been using making to describe creating the universe out of NOTHING while trying to draw a false parallel to MAKING a watch{with already existing matter and energy}.
well then, come to me on that day to tell me you told me so. not today
youve been heere how long jia, 6 years if memory serves{a very very long time nonetheless}. youve been recycling this nonsensical psuedo scientific illogical chidlish argumentation again and again and again, even after every query has been replied to and your arguments destroyed. shudnt people be weary by now?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
stop projectingeinstien did not yield to a biblical stance, that statment is ridiculous to the nth degree. all he said was that the cosmological constant{which would counteract the force of gravity and allow the universe to expand at the rate it does} was a mistake. incidently, the cosmological constant has NOTHING to do with the fact of big bang occuring or the biblical explanation, your making shit up.
springs winding = readjustment of the structure of already EXISTING matter and energy based on the dynamic state of matter around them{i.e people or forces which cause such event to occurs
universal creation = creating out of NON existance, matter/energy/space/time and force.you see, HUGE difference, and not the same cause and affect applies. there is NO precedence for things being created out of NOTHING. it would require a WHOLLY different sort of CAUSE to do that as opposed to the cause which wound the spring. i did not avoid your question, you avoided my answer.
and yes, unless you wanna deny quantum effects like defraction of light and electron, you shall concede that laws which seem solid to us at this macrological level break down at the quantum level.
your contradicting yourself again. if they so called CAUSES cant be SEEN then how can we ATTRIBUTE the AFFECTS to THEM?!?!?!?!
it might sound the same to you but it works different when its convenient to you, seeing as for so long you have been using making to describe creating the universe out of NOTHING while trying to draw a false parallel to MAKING a watch{with already existing matter and energy}.
well then, come to me on that day to tell me you told me so. not today
youve been heere how long jia, 6 years if memory serves{a very very long time nonetheless}. youve been recycling this nonsensical psuedo scientific illogical chidlish argumentation again and again and again, even after every query has been replied to and your arguments destroyed. shudnt people be weary by now?
stop projecting
Okay.
einstien did not yield to a biblical stance, that statment is ridiculous to the nth degree. all he said was that the cosmological constant{which would counteract the force of gravity and allow the universe to expand at the rate it does} was a mistake. incidently, the cosmological constant has NOTHING to do with the fact of big bang occuring or the biblical explanation, your making shit up.
If what you say is true why did Einstein introduce the cosmological constant into his equation? Why didn’t he just leave it as is? Einstein had an agenda because his calculations disproved his belief that the universe was eternal, static.
springs winding = readjustment of the structure of already EXISTING matter and energy based on the dynamic state of matter around them{i.e people or forces which cause such event to occurs
universal creation = creating out of NON existance, matter/energy/space/time and force.
But…the question was simple: do springs wind themselves? The answer is no. This is elementary physics (and you know this).
you see, HUGE difference, and not the same cause and affect applies. there is NO precedence for things being created out of NOTHING. it would require a WHOLLY different sort of CAUSE to do that as opposed to the cause which wound the spring. i did not avoid your question, you avoided my answer.
Skyscrapers don’t create themselves and neither do springs wind themselves. Again, simple physics (that you are aware of).
and yes, unless you wanna deny quantum effects like defraction of light and electron, you shall concede that laws which seem solid to us at this macrological level break down at the quantum level.
So…in your mind are quantum fluctuations a type of god? They are eternal or self-created, govern themselves, come and go as they please, and obey no precedent or set of laws/rules? They have the power to create space, time, and matter from nothing, expand it beyond the speed of light (which is unfathomable according to Einstein i.e. E=mc^2), then author other powerful laws (i.e. the fundamental forces) that seemingly preside over and sustain the entire cosmos with mathematical precision and intelligence/wisdom?
This sounds like a god if I ever heard one.
your contradicting yourself again. if they so called CAUSES cant be SEEN then how can we ATTRIBUTE the AFFECTS to THEM?!?!?!?!
The invisible attributes (i.e. that which we cannot see such as the abstract qualities of God, His omnipotence, omniscience, omnipotence) are manifested by creation (just take a look around at nature).
it might sound the same to you but it works different when its convenient to you, seeing as for so long you have been using making to describe creating the universe out of NOTHING while trying to draw a false parallel to MAKING a watch{with already existing matter and energy}.
Which is more difficult to ponder, fathom, or conceive, creating from no preexisting material (not possible except through supernatural means) and creating from already existing material (this happens daily)?
well then, come to me on that day to tell me you told me so. not today
I refuse.
youve been heere how long jia, 6 years if memory serves{a very very long time nonetheless}. youve been recycling this nonsensical psuedo scientific illogical chidlish argumentation again and again and again, even after every query has been replied to and your arguments destroyed. shudnt people be weary by now?
The question is shouldn’t I be weary now.